NationStates Jolt Archive

Suggestions/amendments anyone?

This proposal hereby calls forth the duty of the UN to improve world security, and grants the UN powers to use its authority on those UN members that do not abide by UN resolutions

Article 1, Resolution outline:

This resolution hereby defines the Blockade system;

As a MEANS to deliver SANCTIONS upon those member nations that DEFY UN decisions

As a MEANS to IMPOSE UN resolutions the definant nation does not submit to, otherwise ENSURE all international trade of the Nation is CUT-OFF

Article 2, how the resolution works:

The resolution works by a three stage level of warning.

Stage 1; The Nation is warned by the UN to submit to resolution authority, and international trade of the nation is CUT for precisely 12 months, or when the devient Nation submits, which ever is sooner.

Stage 2; The Nation, after 12 months of Stage 1, is placed under INDEFINATE state of sanction, untill the Nation submits to the resolutions it defies.

Stage 3; The Nation is activelly BLOCKADED around its borders by the MILITARY forces of UN member Nations. All Nations capable of aiding in the Blockade WILL send some form of force.

Article 3, exceptions to the Blockade:

The blockade powers will NOT be used when a Nation is dependant on Internation trade for the welfare of its people (As DETERMINED by UN Policy Inspectors from UN Member Nations)

The blockade powers will NOT be used if the Nation is in a state whereby it CANNOT actively submit to a resolution

The bockade powers will NOT be used, or shall be discontinued, should the resolution a Nation defies is repelled before, or within the time of the blockade.

Article 4, responsibilities of the Blockading Nations

UN Blockading powers may NOT be sanctioned to further one UN Nation's personal adgenda. A Blockade may ONLY be initiated by multiple UN Members.

UN Blockading powers may NOT be sanctioned against non-UN Members, or be called for BY on-UN Members

UN Blockading powers may NOT be called upon by any member Nations known to defy UN Resolutions themselves.

UN Blockading powers may NOT be used as a method to begin war. They are for use to promote a PEACEFULL reaction from the deviant Nation.

This proposal hereby calls forth the duty of the UN to improve world security, and grants the UN powers to use its authority on those UN members that do not abide by UN resolutions


According to the Nationstates UN rules, this is impossible: all UN nations are made to be in compliance with UN resolutions.

However, I don't think discussing possible guidelines for UN members' interactions (ie. imposing sanctions, embargoes, etc.) is a bad idea. It's just needs to be in the context that the NSUN has not reason for sanctions against disobedient member nations, really, as all of its members are "made" (how we're "made" is never really expressed--and essentially up to us) to abide by passed UN resolutions.

Technically, UN members aren't MADE to follow a preposal. They can still pass issues that actually go against resolutions, such as right to privacy The 'Big Brother' issue, or Ban on drugs, And the legalisation of marjuana (sp?) issue. Ya kin?

Technically, UN members aren't MADE to follow a preposal. They can still pass issues that actually go against resolutions, such as right to privacy The 'Big Brother' issue, or Ban on drugs, And the legalisation of marjuana (sp?) issue. Ya kin?
Issue-Resolution overlap is an area I have no experience, but I can say that the mods and admin have repeatedly made clear that resolutions are not optional, and that a proposal is not allowed to attempt to change the way the game functions, which is what, at first glance, this seems to do. UN Nations are free to roleplay how they are made to come into compliance with a UN resolution, but not (to the best of my knowledge) whether or not they are made to come into compliance.

Then again, there is the case of Sophista and Texan Hotrodders, I believe, where Sophista roleplayed non-compliance with "Law of the Sea" (again, I think that's what it was--my memory of it's a little foggy). I don't know what precedent of 'non-compliance' roleplay the mods set there, but, as far as I know, proposals must be made on the assumption that UN nations are going to be made to come into compliance with them--as well as all the other resolutions.

And, even if the mods are in the habit of allowing well-written non-compliance roleplays, a proposal to mandate certain activities during roleplay wouldn't be allowed, as I don't believe proposals are allowed to interfere with roleplaying.

That being said, I do think this is a good discussion, either in a RP sense, or a proposal sense (guidelines for diplomatic disagreement between UN members). I just want you to know that the mods don't allow proposals to try to change the way the game works, or to mandate certain roleplay activities.

I can see your point of view. Its just, the UN has all these goddamn proposals, and via Issues no one obeys them most of the time (such as some people banning protests in an Issue, and being a UN Member, when there's freedom of expression), and doesn't appear to have ANY possible way of showing its authority. But if the mods'd Nuke this proposal, I'll let it die.

Then again, there is the case of Sophista and Texan Hotrodders, I believe, where Sophista roleplayed non-compliance with "Law of the Sea"
That was the Sophista / Frisbeeterian Dodgeball War (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434), which did in fact relate to the Law of the Sea (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=73), specifically the clause, 11. That no nation shall shelter pirates. Nations may only employ privateers (which are defined as pirates who work officially for a government) in a time of declared war.As this war is still ongoing, both Sophista and Frisbeeteria may legally employ privateers AND belong to the UN. The fact that Frisbeeteria has left the UN does not impact Sophista's Declaration of War.

UN resolutions cannot be evaded, but loopholes exist in every law. Since using legal loopholes is still considered "in compliance", this proposal is somewhat pointless, as it is not possible for any UN nation to "not abide by UN resolutions".